I just got a "New users interested in dialoguing with you (not a match yet)" notification and when I clicked on it the first thing I saw was that exactly one person in my Top Voted users list was marked as recently active in dialogue matching. I don't vote much so my Top Voted users list is in fact an All Voted users list. This means that either the new user interested in dialoguing with me is the one guy who is conspicuously presented at the top of my page, or it's some random that I've never interacted with and have no way of matching.
This is technically not a privacy violation because it could be some random, but I have to imagine this is leaking more bits of information than you intended it to (it's way more than a 5:1 update), so I figured I'd report it as a bug unanticipated feature.
It further occurs to me that anyone who was dedicated to extracting information from the system could completely deanonymize their matches by setting a simple script to scrape https://www.lesswrong.com/dialogueMatching every minute or so and cross-referencing "new users interested" notifications with the moment someone shoots to the top of the "recently active in dialogue matching" list. It sounds like you don't care about that kind of attack though so I guess I'm mentioning it for completeness.
All your examples of high-tier axioms seem to fall into the category of "necessary to proceed", the sort of thing where you can't really do any further epistemology if the proposition is false. How did the God axiom either have that quality or end up high on the list without it?
Surely some axioms can be more rationally chosen than others. For instance, "There is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars" looks like a silly axiom, but "there is a round cube orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars" looks even sillier. Assuming the possibility of round cubes seems somehow more "epistemically expensive" than assuming the possibility of teapots.
If you are predicting that two people will never try to censor each other in the same domain, that also happens. If your theory is somehow compatible with that, then it sounds like there are a lot of epicycles in this "independent-mindedness" construct that ought to be explained rather than presented as self-evident.
We only censor other people more-independent-minded than ourselves.
This predicts that two people will never try to censor each other, since it is impossible for A to be more independent-minded than B and also for B to be more independent-minded than A. However, people do engage in battles of mutual censorship, therefore the claim must be false.
The Law of Extremity seems to work against the Law of Maybe Calm The Fuck Down. If the median X isn't worth worrying about, but most Xs you see are selected for being so extreme they can't hide, then the fact you are seeing an X is evidence about its extremity and you should only calm down if an unusually extreme X is not worth worrying about.
Surely they would use different language than "not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities" to describe a #metoo firing.
It's fine to include my responses in summaries from the dataset, but please remove it before making the data public (Example: "The average age of the respondents, including row 205, is 22.5")
It's not clear to me what this option is for. If someone doesn't tick it, it seems like you are volunteering to remove their information even from summary averages, but that doesn't make sense because at that point it seems to mean "I am filling out this survey but please throw it directly in the trash when I'm done." Surely if someone wanted that kind of privacy they would simply not submit the survey?
It's not obvious that that should be the standard. I can imagine Metz asking "Why shouldn't I publish his name?", the implied "no one gets to know your real name if you don't want them to" norm is pretty novel.
One obvious answer to the above question is "Because Scott doesn't want you to, he thinks it'll mess with his psychiatry practice", to which I imagine Metz asking, bemused "Why should I care what Scott wants?" A journalist's job is to inform people, not be nice to them! Now Metz doesn't seem to be great at informing people anyway, but at least he's not sacrificing what little information value he has upon the altar of niceness.